Return of the video play...

[TerpZebra]

I'm back with at least one more video play.

During the punt return, Black #2 is called for an illegal block in the back on White #20.

White #20 ends up making the tackle.

What are your thoughts on the flag?

Here it is in regular speed

Here it is in slow motion

[Mike L]

there shouldn't be one.

editted to add...I said the above because I don't think this is a BIB.

[insatty]

Like holding, blocks in the back should generally be called at the point of attack that restricts the defender from making a play on the ball carrier. Cheap-shot blocks in the back may be called as personal fouls anywhere for safety reasons.

Here, the block was illegal and at the point of attack. But since the block did not restrict the defender from making a play, don't throw.

[refbuz]

Originally Posted by insatty

Like holding, blocks in the back should generally be called at the point of attack that restricts the defender from making a play on the ball carrier. Cheap-shot blocks in the back may be called as personal fouls anywhere for safety reasons.

Here, the block was illegal and at the point of attack. But since the block did not restrict the defender from making a play, don't throw.

I think that you have to throw the flag here regardless of the fact that the offended player made the play, because you have to maintain control of the game. By not calling that foul you have a potential situation where white may try and retaliate later on in the game as a result of this play.

I had a very similar stance as you but I recently had a conversation regarding IBIBs with a senior official in my chapter who's opinion I respect that led me to rethink my own philosophy regarding plays like these. I was asking specifically about whether a IBIB in advance of the end of the run was a "quality" foul. His response to my question was if it is there, yes. Unlike holding there's no official philosophy regarding a BIB off the ball. This is mainly because the potential of retaliaion is greater by passing on BIBs that it is on a backside hold. You call the foul in an effort to maintain control of the game.

We also talked about going the personal foul route on a BIB as well, and he said that it would have to be pretty bad for him to go that route, because that extra 5 yard penalty is a tougher sell to the coaches.

[FeetBallRef]

According to my understanding of the rules, it is a IBB. It just happens that the contact caused #20 to end up in a good spot & he was able to stick out a arm & a tackle just happened to be the result.

I would have thrown the flag. The contact was pretty harsh. If that same contact had happened 10 yards behind the runner, it would have been a PF.

[bcl1127]

Looking at full speed, it was a strong hit in the back, I think that the flag came out correctly. Just because the person gets BIB right into the runner causing the tackle does it mean that is it not a penalty? Nope. Say the runner got by you would bring the ball back to that same spot and march it off from there, so just because the return ended at the point of the penalty does not mean that there should be no flag for something like that, in my opinion.

If you are saying because the illegal block did not "spring the runner" so don't penalize because the play would go back 10 yards, then why would you move the play back ten yards from the spot of the foul if the runner was "sprung". I think that you just need to be consistent. If you think it was a block in the back at that point the penalty should be marked off from that point regardless of if the tackle was made there or not. The end result of the play if the runner got by or not would be placing the ball at the same spot, so really, just because someone commits a penalty and a tackle comes from it the team the foul was committed against is being short changed if you do not throw this flag.

[ajmc]

Are you guys serious? "Here, the block was illegal and at the point of attack. But since the block did not restrict the defender from making a play, don't throw."

Then what the hell are we doing out there? If he hit him with a 2 X 4, but he still made the play, does that excuse everything?

Unless I'm missing something, the blocker took a full 5 step dead aim approach at his opponents back, made contact directly in the back of an opponent who was looking, totally, away from the blocker, and knocked him flying.

I think I've got a pretty good grasp on the concept of "advantage/disadvantage" but anyone letting this one pass because, "the block did not restrict the defender from making a play" should reconsider how he spends his spare time.

[insatty]

With all due respect to the senior official in Refbuz's association, that advice does not reflect the governing philosophy in Division 1 and the NFL. If Division 1 and NFL officials are not calling these fouls, why should HS ball be called differently? The whole idea of governing philosophies is to encourage officiating consistency and proper game management.

With all due respect to ajmc, the bold fonts he uses lead me to believe that he sees this block as worthy of a personal foul. I don't and I would bet that the current Division 1 supervisors would grade a IBW call here as "marginal," meaning that they could defend the call but counsel against it because the governing philosophy requires a restriction. We are not out there to throw flags, but to manage the game to ensure fairness and safety. The emotion that ajmc's post reflects is not an attribute of a football official that desires to move up.

[FredFan7]

By the book, it's a BIB. However the hit wasn't vicious and it didn't impact the outcome of the pay (the foulee made the tackle).

No flag.

[Jimmie24]

By rule that is borderline. Looks to me like it is more of a shot to the shoulder, which by rule is not a block in the back. It is not nearly as violent as some are saying. If we call a block based by the violent nature of it, then we are going to have to call a lot of straight up blocks too.

A block in the back needs to be called, when the force is directly in his back. In this video it is not. Even the direction that the player goes, shows that the force was not in his back. He turned with the ball carrier.

[Warrenkicker]

Perhaps I am seeing it differently than others but I think that K20 turned just prior to the contact. I see his shoulders parallel to the sideline while tracking the returner. R2 coming up to him from the side when the returner cut back inside. This turned K20's shoulders from parallel to the sideline to about a 45 degree angle to the sideline when the contact occurred. I know contact from that angle will get a lot of flags at the high school level though I might not agree with that call.

So I don't think that the call is there even with none of the surrounding situation. However I feel K20 turned his "back" to the blocker after the blocker was committed to his charge. Thus I feel there is no foul no matter what you think of the location of the contact.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Warrenkicker

Perhaps I am seeing it differently than others but I think that K20 turned just prior to the contact. I see his shoulders parallel to the sideline while tracking the returner. R2 coming up to him from the side when the returner cut back inside. This turned K20's shoulders from parallel to the sideline to about a 45 degree angle to the sideline when the contact occurred. I know contact from that angle will get a lot of flags at the high school level though I might not agree with that call.

So I don't think that the call is there even with none of the surrounding situation. However I feel K20 turned his "back" to the blocker after the blocker was committed to his charge. Thus I feel there is no foul no matter what you think of the location of the contact.

I had a spirited discussion with an experienced official a few years back on a video that was shown in an association meeting. There was a block flagged as an IBB that definitely was not between the shoulder blades. He said it was more to the back than to the front and should be flagged "for safety". I disagree with that myself, but can verify that this mentality sure does exist. And of course, this block will always generate moans from the sidelines

[JasonTX]

Why is it that there are some opinions that a block in the back is a "safety" foul, but it's only a 10 yard penalty. If it were a true "safety" foul it would be a 15 yard penalty like the others are.

[Jimmie24]

It is the same as the two different face mask penalties. The rules committee separated clip and block in the back. They wanted the block in the back called more so they lessened that penalty.